Big Bang derived from Boscovich's theory by Einstein
Big Bang derived from Boscovich's theory by Einstein, is the claim of Nigel Cook.
However, Nigel Cook is opposed to Boscovich's theory, and hence since I am promoting Boscovich's theory as the Unified Theory of Physics, I will correct him where he goes wrong.
Nigel Cook says:
"Whenever Boscovich's 'force' (line on a graph) crossed over from 'attraction' to 'repulsion', there was a supposedly stable point where things could be stable, like molecules, water drops, and planets; without collapsing or exploding. This led Einstein to do the same to keep the universe 'static' with the cosmological constant, which he later admitted was his 'biggest blunder'."
i.e. Einstein was trying to get a Static model for the Universe where the attractive and repulsive forces of Boscovich's theory were in balance.
When Einstein was presentewd evidence by Hubble that was interpreted as the Universe was expanding and not Static, he then thought his introduction of the Cosmological constant to try to get the forces balanced out was a blunder; removing that constant from the model and it was an expanding universe model.
However in modern Cosmology, that constant is reintroduced, so its still a case of repulsive and attractive forces as per Boscovich's theory. Just trying to get the theory to give a Static model was a bit of a blunder.
As Nigel Cook explains it:
" The cosmological constant makes gravity zero at the distance of the average separation between galaxies, simply by making gravity fall off faster than the inverse square law, become zero at the galactic interspersion distance, and become repulsive at greater distances. "
Nigel Cook then thinks Einstein was wrong:
"However, Einstein was not merely wrong to follow Boscovich because of the lack of gravitational mechanism.."
That is the first issue - no gravitational mechanism. But from Newton's theory there is no gravitational mechanism, one merely has to accept that within Newtonian physics. And Boscovich was extending Newton's theory, and also not having a mechanism (as far as I know).
Cook is proposing a gravitational theory with a gravitational mechanism, and thinks a gravitational theory without such a mechanism is flawed, but Newton's theory is accepted without such a thing.
The next issue he brings up is:
". and the 1929 evidence for the big bang, .."
Merely saying the Static Universe model was found wrong by the interpretation of Hubble's astronomical evidence for expanding universe. The theory that is Boscovich's is unaffected by the model being derived from it not fitting this, because the expanding universe model still comes from the theory.
".but also because even neglecting these, the solution would not work. There is no stability in such a solution, since the nature of the hypothetical force when crossing-over from attraction to repulsion is to magnify any slight motion, enhancing instability, so there is no real stability."
In other words, he is saying that the model solution derived from Boscovich's theory by Einstein was unstable and was not thus static as what Einstein was aiming for. Einstein tried to get a static model from Boscovich's theory and failed, the better model from Boscovich's theory was unstable and either expanded or contracted.
Einstein working from Boscovich's theory was trying to create a model of the universe that was static, however the model was unstable either expanding or contracting. And when Hubble presented his astronomical evidence it was decided that the Universe was expanding, and the unstable model was thus then the expanding model of the Big Bang. All of this was derived from Einstein working by Boscovich's theory of attractive and repulsive forces, and that idea of attractive and repulsive forces still carries over to modern Cosmology.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]